This is an archive of the discussion of Battle of Stuart's Pond, a hoax article that was deleted. It has been copied here solely for the purpose of documenting hoaxes on Wikipedia, in order to improve our detection and understanding of them. If you would like to actually make a comment on this page or the discussion you see below, please go to Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This article has been rated as Project-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This incident appears to be a user's invention
I have read extensively on the subject of the War of 1812 and have never before encountered this "Stuart's Pond" engagement, in which the article claims that 90 people were killed. It certainly is not mentioned in any of the three books that the article claims as references. I did a Google search for "Stuart's Pond" that recorded only four hits: one for the Wikipedia article, one for the Wikipedia category-'Conflicts in 1813' and two for Google's "Answers.com" which were both sourced to the Wikipedia article and quoted it verbatim.
This alleged military engagement appears to be a hoax by a user and I think that the page ought to be deleted forthwith. Flonto (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this section had been inserted by a user and removed as a hoax, I'm checking sources now... Tirronan (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
